tort

• Duty of Care


  The law decides whether a duty of care is owed by using the general test, from Donoghue v Stevenson, the 'Neighbour Principle'
• Neighbour Principle


  You have a general duty not to injure those who are directly affected by your acts or omissions
• Caparo v Dickman test

  1. There must be foreseeability of harm

  2. There must be proximity in the time, space or relationship

  3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
• Duty of Care cases

  • Kent v Griffiths
  • Bourhill v Young
  • Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
• Breach of Duty


  When you breach a duty, you must have done an act/omission which fell below the standard of care
• Breach of Duty cases

  • Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
  • Bolan v Friern Hospital
  • Nettleship v Weston
  • Mullins
• Standard of Care


  • The standard of care is that of a reasonable person
  • For experts/professionals, the standard is higher than a reasonable person
  • For learner drivers, the standard is that of a reasonable driver
  • For children, the standard is that of a reasonable child of the defendant's age
• Risk Factors


  • Likelihood of Harm
  • Seriousness of Harm
  • Cost of Prevention
  • Vulnerability of the Claimant
• Res Ipsa Loquitur


  The thing speaks for itself - suggests there must have been negligence for the incident to have occurred
• Res Ipsa Loquitur cases

  • Scott v London and St. Katherine's Docks
  • Mahon v Osborne
  • Ward v Tesco
• Factual Causation


  But for the defendant's negligence, the claimant wouldn't have suffered their injury or damage
• Factual Causation cases


  • Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
  • Wilshire v Essex
• Legal Causation


  The law requires a reasonable foreseeability of the kind of damage that is caused
• Legal Causation cases


  • Wagon Mound No.1
  • Hughes v Lord Advocate
• Novus Actus Interveniens


  When another event comes between the negligence and the damage, the court must consider whether there was a new intervening cause
• Novus Actus Interveniens cases

  • Fairchild v Glenhaven
  • Knightley v Johns
  • Reeves v Commissioner of Police
• Thin Skull Rule


  The defendant is liable for the full extent of the claimant's injuries even if the claimant was particularly susceptible/vulnerable
• Thin Skull Rule cases

  • Smith v Leech Brain
  • Paris v Stepney
• Pre-action protocols


  1. Claimant writes to defendant outlining negligence and compensation

  2. Defendant replies or ignores

  3. If no reply, claimant instructs solicitor to submit N1 form to court or complete claim online at moneyclaim.gov.uk

  4. Defendant must send acknowledgment of service letter within 14 days

  5. Defendant must defend using an N9 form within 14 days after (max 28 days to file defence)
• Court case process


  1. Court begins case monitoring

  2. Allocation questionnaire/directions questionnaire sent out

  3. Case management by the judge

  4. Set date for trial

  5. Judgement is enforced if the defendant does not pay
• Track System


  • Small Claims: Claims under £10,000
  • Fast Track: Claims £10,000-£25,000
  • Multi-track: Complex and high value cases over £25,000
• Special Damages


  Lost earnings, medical expenses, property damage, expenses arising directly from the accident
• General Damages


  Pain and suffering, loss of amenity, future loss of earnings, future medical expenses
• Deductions


  No deductions can be made from damages in respect of insurance benefits, private pensions, payments from charitable funds, or payments from disaster funds
• Lump Sums and Structured Settlements

  Tort damages are normally awarded as a lump sum, but a "structured settlement" can provide a series of regular payments to the claimant for the rest of their life
• Pecuniary Losses


  Quantifiable losses that can be valued, such as loss of earnings and property damage
• Non-Pecuniary Losses


  Non-quantifiable losses that are difficult to value, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of faculty